Trump Lied About Iraq War

[IcebergSlim]

When I see a progressive, I think hypocrite...

When I see someone claiming not to have voted for POTUS in 40 years, I think "Lying Unrepentant 2 Time Scrub Voter"

I'm only 46...
Lol

How did you get so senile so fast?

 

[elektra]

.

The containment of someone like Saddam was done because of the realization of what deposing Saddam would do to the region. He was a necessary evil. Bush didn't see it like that, and was found out to be wrong.

Saddam Hussein raped and tortured men and women, that is a necessary evil? You are sick!

Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, killing thousands of children, that was a necessary evil?

You are right, Bush didn't see it like that.

His daddy did....

I already stated the culpability of Bush sr., you aint to quick are you.

 

[elektra]

I disagree that Trump is a Liberal Democrat. He's a populist. He'll say anything.

Diplomacy often works in ways that aren't convenient, Saddam was always going to push and push and push. But he didn't need to be taken out, and if he was going to be taken out, then a decent post war policy was required.

So you believe the USA should not abide to the terms of treaties it signs?

You describe an invasion with tanks, murder, and rape as, "push, push, push", which is okay with you, even though we signed a treaty?

Further you would of allowed Saddam to build, keep and use, the Chemical Weapons Bill Clinton destroyed?

Further you would of allowed Saddam to build, keep and use, the Chemical Weapons Bill Clinton destroyed?

Can ANYONE translate this into English?

Yea, she stated that Saddam was necessary, I stated letting Saddam alone, from the beginning of the War which was under Bush Sr. would of allowed Saddam to keep his weapons that Clinton destroyed. Yes, under Bill Clinton Saddam had chemical weapons which we destroyed.

 

[elektra]

It is a shame Bill Clinton got us into Iraq by not enforcing the terms of the surrender.
Another Boldly Asserted falsehood, E?

You know what I say about Cherry Pickers without a tree, they are pulling it out there ass.

I clearly place blame on Bush Sr.

Of course had Bush sr. never of made April Gaspie Ambassador to Iraq Saddam never of would done the opposite of what she ordered.

Geez, E.....weren't you caught pulling something from your ass the last time we met?

Yes, your head, how was your shower.

 

[MaryL]

Ever see the movie Zelig? Trump comes off more and more like that chameleon like character, always reinventing himself and trying to fit into X, Y or Z group. He's slimy and slippery and has no integrity what so ever. NONE.

 

[frigidweirdo]

.

The containment of someone like Saddam was done because of the realization of what deposing Saddam would do to the region. He was a necessary evil. Bush didn't see it like that, and was found out to be wrong.

Saddam Hussein raped and tortured men and women, that is a necessary evil? You are sick!

Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, killing thousands of children, that was a necessary evil?

You are right, Bush didn't see it like that.

I'm sick because Saddam Hussein had people tortured and raped. I'm sorry, but Bush had people tortured.

The US has supported Saudi Arabia, they torture people. The US has supported many dictators in the past, including people like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Saddam had people killed, Bush went in and got MORE people killed than Saddam was killing.

I'm sick? No, I just understand what I'm talking about and you're trying to gain some kind of political points by making a claim that I'm somehow sick.

Saddam used weapons of mass destruction. The US is the ONLY COUNTRY to have ever drop nuclear bombs on cities. I'm sorry, why did no one take out the USA?

Bush didn't go into Iraq because of the Iraqi people, making such a claim is just plain wrong. He didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people and got hundreds of thousands of them killed through his policies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry for coming in random, but I have always hated people who bash politicians for changing their positions.

It's a smart leader who will change their opinions when new evidence changes things with an issue.

It's a reetarded leader who stands pat on bad policy because they're afraid of Fox News calling them a flip flopper

Is it an even smarter leader who changes their position in the past?

I think people expect politicians to have some amount of fundamentals in the first place, like the Pauls and like Sanders, they have positions that they believe are right and then they stand and people can vote for them or not.
People who chop and change their policies, especially the big things, based on whether the public seems to support it or not are people who simply don't have a platform. Their whole aim is to improve their careers. Is it a smart move? Sure it is, it advances their career. However it leader to "politicians" that everyone hates (and loves, oh the irony).

 

[Rustic]

.

The containment of someone like Saddam was done because of the realization of what deposing Saddam would do to the region. He was a necessary evil. Bush didn't see it like that, and was found out to be wrong.

Saddam Hussein raped and tortured men and women, that is a necessary evil? You are sick!

Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, killing thousands of children, that was a necessary evil?

You are right, Bush didn't see it like that.

I'm sick because Saddam Hussein had people tortured and raped. I'm sorry, but Bush had people tortured.

The US has supported Saudi Arabia, they torture people. The US has supported many dictators in the past, including people like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Saddam had people killed, Bush went in and got MORE people killed than Saddam was killing.

I'm sick? No, I just understand what I'm talking about and you're trying to gain some kind of political points by making a claim that I'm somehow sick.

Saddam used weapons of mass destruction. The US is the ONLY COUNTRY to have ever drop nuclear bombs on cities. I'm sorry, why did no one take out the USA?

Bush didn't go into Iraq because of the Iraqi people, making such a claim is just plain wrong. He didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people and got hundreds of thousands of them killed through his policies.

Obamacare is torture...

 

[elektra]

.

The containment of someone like Saddam was done because of the realization of what deposing Saddam would do to the region. He was a necessary evil. Bush didn't see it like that, and was found out to be wrong.

Saddam Hussein raped and tortured men and women, that is a necessary evil? You are sick!

Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, killing thousands of children, that was a necessary evil?

You are right, Bush didn't see it like that.

I'm sick because Saddam Hussein had people tortured and raped. I'm sorry, but Bush had people tortured.

The US has supported Saudi Arabia, they torture people. The US has supported many dictators in the past, including people like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Saddam had people killed, Bush went in and got MORE people killed than Saddam was killing.

I'm sick? No, I just understand what I'm talking about and you're trying to gain some kind of political points by making a claim that I'm somehow sick.

Saddam used weapons of mass destruction. The US is the ONLY COUNTRY to have ever drop nuclear bombs on cities. I'm sorry, why did no one take out the USA?

Bush didn't go into Iraq because of the Iraqi people, making such a claim is just plain wrong. He didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people and got hundreds of thousands of them killed through his policies.

You said we must keep Saddam Hussein because he is a necessary evil, that evil was torture and rape, murder, using weapons of mass destruction on Children.

I made the point that you make an outrageous statement, that Saddam was necessary, you can't make the claim that the brutal torture perpetrated by Saddam was necessary while in the next breath denouncing Bush for pouring water on the face of the same people? Saddam's torture that led to the death of many is necessary but not the USA's which was simply pouring water on the same people's face?

You should think of what you post if that is not what you mean.

Now much of your rant comes from Marxist Howard Zinn's classic rant, The People's History of the USA. Do you have a copy, have you read it, do you know that Howard Zinn states in the book, that it is a distortion of history.

Why did the World not turn on the USA when we stopped Japan? You do not understand that this was a World War, that the World was at War with aggressors who were on the offensive? So when you ask why the World did not stop us, it is because the World was on our side against Japan who began the War by raping, killing, and torturing children.

See that is something Howard Zinn leaves out of his classic rant. That Japanese men were raping 10 year old girls in China and Burma. That is a brutality most people find reprehensible, hence when we forced Japan into surrender, the World rejoiced that such a brutal nation that did so much horror was stopped.

The Japanese are a different people today, back then they were stuck between their warrior medieval past and entering the modern world of modern thinking. The old belief that a Samurai gains power by raping the 10 year old girls of their enemies was hard for the Japanese to let go of. They got educated real good, and now it is time to educate the Middle East but their are some who believe there is such a thing as, "necessary evil".

 

[TeaBagger]

He supported it from the beginning and here's the proof. What a fucking peice of shit liar Trump is.

He opposed the war after he found out we were lied into it by Bush and Cheney and the other Republican war profiteers.
In Fact | Donald Trump Opposed Iraq War — but After It Started

Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama opposed the war from the get go.

 

[elektra]

He supported it from the beginning and here's the proof. What a fucking peice of shit liar Trump is.

He opposed the war after he found out we were lied into it by Bush and Cheney and the other Republican war profiteers.
In Fact | Donald Trump Opposed Iraq War — but After It Started

Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama opposed the war from the get go.

"Al Sharpton is a fabulous man, a great man, we can make great deals with Al Sharpton that will help the American people. I can make a better deal with Al Sharpton, nobody can make a better deal with Al Sharpton than me, look at my hotels, my hotels are great hotels, nobody does anything better than me"

 

[frigidweirdo]

.

The containment of someone like Saddam was done because of the realization of what deposing Saddam would do to the region. He was a necessary evil. Bush didn't see it like that, and was found out to be wrong.

Saddam Hussein raped and tortured men and women, that is a necessary evil? You are sick!

Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, killing thousands of children, that was a necessary evil?

You are right, Bush didn't see it like that.

I'm sick because Saddam Hussein had people tortured and raped. I'm sorry, but Bush had people tortured.

The US has supported Saudi Arabia, they torture people. The US has supported many dictators in the past, including people like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Saddam had people killed, Bush went in and got MORE people killed than Saddam was killing.

I'm sick? No, I just understand what I'm talking about and you're trying to gain some kind of political points by making a claim that I'm somehow sick.

Saddam used weapons of mass destruction. The US is the ONLY COUNTRY to have ever drop nuclear bombs on cities. I'm sorry, why did no one take out the USA?

Bush didn't go into Iraq because of the Iraqi people, making such a claim is just plain wrong. He didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people and got hundreds of thousands of them killed through his policies.

Obamacare is torture...

Wow, you're full of inspiration today huh? I don't have anything to say to your nonsense.

 

[frigidweirdo]

.

The containment of someone like Saddam was done because of the realization of what deposing Saddam would do to the region. He was a necessary evil. Bush didn't see it like that, and was found out to be wrong.

Saddam Hussein raped and tortured men and women, that is a necessary evil? You are sick!

Saddam Hussein used Weapons of Mass Destruction on his own people, killing thousands of children, that was a necessary evil?

You are right, Bush didn't see it like that.

I'm sick because Saddam Hussein had people tortured and raped. I'm sorry, but Bush had people tortured.

The US has supported Saudi Arabia, they torture people. The US has supported many dictators in the past, including people like Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Saddam had people killed, Bush went in and got MORE people killed than Saddam was killing.

I'm sick? No, I just understand what I'm talking about and you're trying to gain some kind of political points by making a claim that I'm somehow sick.

Saddam used weapons of mass destruction. The US is the ONLY COUNTRY to have ever drop nuclear bombs on cities. I'm sorry, why did no one take out the USA?

Bush didn't go into Iraq because of the Iraqi people, making such a claim is just plain wrong. He didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people and got hundreds of thousands of them killed through his policies.

You said we must keep Saddam Hussein because he is a necessary evil, that evil was torture and rape, murder, using weapons of mass destruction on Children.

I made the point that you make an outrageous statement, that Saddam was necessary, you can't make the claim that the brutal torture perpetrated by Saddam was necessary while in the next breath denouncing Bush for pouring water on the face of the same people? Saddam's torture that led to the death of many is necessary but not the USA's which was simply pouring water on the same people's face?

You should think of what you post if that is not what you mean.

Now much of your rant comes from Marxist Howard Zinn's classic rant, The People's History of the USA. Do you have a copy, have you read it, do you know that Howard Zinn states in the book, that it is a distortion of history.

Why did the World not turn on the USA when we stopped Japan? You do not understand that this was a World War, that the World was at War with aggressors who were on the offensive? So when you ask why the World did not stop us, it is because the World was on our side against Japan who began the War by raping, killing, and torturing children.

See that is something Howard Zinn leaves out of his classic rant. That Japanese men were raping 10 year old girls in China and Burma. That is a brutality most people find reprehensible, hence when we forced Japan into surrender, the World rejoiced that such a brutal nation that did so much horror was stopped.

The Japanese are a different people today, back then they were stuck between their warrior medieval past and entering the modern world of modern thinking. The old belief that a Samurai gains power by raping the 10 year old girls of their enemies was hard for the Japanese to let go of. They got educated real good, and now it is time to educate the Middle East but their are some who believe there is such a thing as, "necessary evil".

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

 

[elektra]

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

You seem to think that if you change Saddam you'd just flowers and sunshine, instead of more problems. You don't seem to think that there are certain inherent problems within the Middle East, and that whatever path you choose, you'll get these problems.

This isn't a black and white situation.

Firstly, you say murder. Well, if Saddam was the leader of Iraq and he killed people, it wasn't murder, it was execution. The US executes people too. No doubt it knocks people off before due process too.

Second, you talk about torture. The US is known for torture, you have Trump saying he'd do torture, you had Torture in Abu Grabe, you probably had torture in these secret CIA prisons around the world too.

Third, you talk of rape, as far as I know the US govt doesn't practice this kind of torture, but it does the other two. Yet you say Saddam is so bad and needed to be got rid of. But you don't talk about ridding us of the US govt. Why is that?

 

[Weatherman2020]

He supported it from the beginning and here's the proof. What a fucking peice of shit liar Trump is.

Of course he did. He is just a salesman trying to win gullable voters.

 

[elektra]

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

You seem to think that if you change Saddam you'd just flowers and sunshine, instead of more problems. You don't seem to think that there are certain inherent problems within the Middle East, and that whatever path you choose, you'll get these problems.

This isn't a black and white situation.

Firstly, you say murder. Well, if Saddam was the leader of Iraq and he killed people, it wasn't murder, it was execution. The US executes people too. No doubt it knocks people off before due process too.

Second, you talk about torture. The US is known for torture, you have Trump saying he'd do torture, you had Torture in Abu Grabe, you probably had torture in these secret CIA prisons around the world too.

Third, you talk of rape, as far as I know the US govt doesn't practice this kind of torture, but it does the other two. Yet you say Saddam is so bad and needed to be got rid of. But you don't talk about ridding us of the US govt. Why is that?

Faulty premises on your part.

I was just commenting on your post, which I can let go. I made the point quite effectively.

Murder, the bad guy do not get to decide what murder is, we do, we are the good guys. I know lots of people do not like that. Oh well.

Yes torture, that is certainly a faulty premise as well. You think our leaders are no different than Saddam Hussein? You believe Bush tortured U.S Citizens the same as Saddam, of course not, you are busy throwing out the clever talking points, establishing a shaky strawman argument, on top of a false premise. The USA did not invade Mexico and rape and murder and torture its citizens, although you most likely will now make that argument.

And now you argue that we got rid of Saddam because of torture? So why not get rid of the USA?

I never argued that we got rid of Saddam because he was bad. Had I been asked I would of stated we got rid of Saddam because he refused to abide the terms of his surrender. That by not abiding by the terms of his Surrender, Saddam was still at war.

Much of this was said at the time, I am not some genius thinking this up, Bush kept his mouth shut and really screwed up the political side of war. But either way what I state is fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's a question. Which would you prefer, Saddam Hussein or ISIQ/ISIS/Daesh??? Which is worse for killing?
Saddam played a role in the Middle East, he kept the Iranians and they're rather Conservative form of Islam in check, Bush opened this up and ISIS was a by product of this.

You think it's an outrageous statement, yet Bush 41 and his team agreed with what I said, hence why they didn't invade Iraq in 1991.

I did think before I posted, I know what I'm saying and I stand by what I'm saying. I understand you want to find out what I mean, so ask questions before you condemn what I've said without understanding it.

I know what you said and how you said it, all Saddam did was PUSH PUSH PUSH, and that Saddam was a necessary evil.

A funny way to describe murder rape and torture of the people, a funny way to describe Saddam's offensive war against Kuwait.

ISIS, yes, a creation of Liberal Ideology, that we must not ever win a war against aggressors.

Yes, the Evil of Saddam in Liberal Democrat ideology in necessary, but a stronger force against Saddam, the USA must not be allowed to be the necessary good in the region.

I get it. I understood exactly what you say, Bush Bad, but Saddam's murder and torture and use of chemical weapons is necessary, to control such despicable people.

You seem to think that if you change Saddam you'd just flowers and sunshine, instead of more problems. You don't seem to think that there are certain inherent problems within the Middle East, and that whatever path you choose, you'll get these problems.

This isn't a black and white situation.

Firstly, you say murder. Well, if Saddam was the leader of Iraq and he killed people, it wasn't murder, it was execution. The US executes people too. No doubt it knocks people off before due process too.

Second, you talk about torture. The US is known for torture, you have Trump saying he'd do torture, you had Torture in Abu Grabe, you probably had torture in these secret CIA prisons around the world too.

Third, you talk of rape, as far as I know the US govt doesn't practice this kind of torture, but it does the other two. Yet you say Saddam is so bad and needed to be got rid of. But you don't talk about ridding us of the US govt. Why is that?

Faulty premises on your part.

I was just commenting on your post, which I can let go. I made the point quite effectively.

Murder, the bad guy do not get to decide what murder is, we do, we are the good guys. I know lots of people do not like that. Oh well.

Yes torture, that is certainly a faulty premise as well. You think our leaders are no different than Saddam Hussein? You believe Bush tortured U.S Citizens the same as Saddam, of course not, you are busy throwing out the clever talking points, establishing a shaky strawman argument, on top of a false premise. The USA did not invade Mexico and rape and murder and torture its citizens, although you most likely will now make that argument.

And now you argue that we got rid of Saddam because of torture? So why not get rid of the USA?

I never argued that we got rid of Saddam because he was bad. Had I been asked I would of stated we got rid of Saddam because he refused to abide the terms of his surrender. That by not abiding by the terms of his Surrender, Saddam was still at war.

Much of this was said at the time, I am not some genius thinking this up, Bush kept his mouth shut and really screwed up the political side of war. But either way what I state is fact.

Faulty premise or a premise you just don't agree with.

We're the good guys? Kind of like cowboys and injuns right? The Cowboys the good guys committing genocide, and the Injuns the bad guys defending their land and way of life from those encroaching. Got it.

However, yes, I have noticed that many people in the US do try and define themselves as the good guys. Many people around the world would disagree with your statement. In fact it's a psychological thing that people do to always make sure they're on the right side, no matter how indefensible they have been.

Why did Bush not torture people the same as Saddam did? I'm willing to read your answer to this one.

Why would I make the claim the US invaded Mexico? I'm a little confused at this statement, it just popped up out of nowhere.

Also, Bush didn't get rid of Saddam because he didn't abide by the terms of surrender either. I'm sorry, but this is plain wrong, and not difficult to show otherwise.

 

[eddiew]

Trump is the kind of fellow that likes to drag people down to his level...

trump is low life scum ,,rich but still scum ,,,howard stern would make a great vp for him

 

[eddiew]

He changed his mind. So big deal. Hillary and her husband defrauded millions from taxpayers in the Whitewater debacle and left behind a trail of dead bodies to cover it up.

you must be smoking something strong